This Blog is for players and collectors of traditional War Games. It provides information and commentary about older board games from publishers such as TAHGC, SPI, and GDW. Most of the titles discussed here are out of print and available only in the resale market. Still, I hope that the various posts, game descriptions, book reviews, critiques, and other hobby-related material that I present are of interest to those players who still appreciate and play some of the older “classic” games.

THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR is a strategic-level simulation of the land and sea war, at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, between the Empire of Japan and Tsarist Russia for control of Manchuria. This early offering from Game Designers’ Workshop (GDW) is actually composed of two separate games: PORT ARTHUR and TSUSHIMA. Each of these titles can be played independently, or they can be combined to simulate the whole land and sea campaign that directly comprised the Russo-Japanese War, 1904-05. THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR was designed by Marc William Miller and published by Game Designers’ Workshop in 1976.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

On 27 May, 1905, forty-five Russian warships, after completing an extraordinary 18,000 nautical mile voyage all the way from their regular station in the Baltic Sea, through the Atlantic and — because they were denied passage through the Suez Canal — all the way around Africa and into the Pacific, finally entered the Tsushima Strait between Korea and the Japanese Home Islands. The Russian fleet that steamed all the way from the Baltic to the Pacific was commanded by Admiral Zinovy Rozhestvensky and included seven battleships and six armored cruisers.

Unfortunately for Admiral Rozhestvensky, his magnificent feat of seamanship had not gone unnoticed; spies had alerted Tokyo as soon as the Russian fleet got under way. Thus, the Tsarist armada's ultimate arrival was anticipated for almost the whole of its voyage; and when the Russian fleet finally sailed into the Pacific battle area, the Japanese navy was lying in wait.

Rozhestvensky’s Baltic fleet was on a course for the Russian port of Vladivostok when it was intercepted by a powerful Japanese fleet, under the command of Admiral Heihachiro Togo. Although Rozhestvensky wished to avoid an immediate engagement after his long and wearing sea voyage, Admiral Togo had other plans. By late afternoon, a major battle had developed as Togo’s battleships began to pound the retreating Russian ships at long range. The accurate Japanese fire was devastating. Within a matter of hours, four of the Russian battleships had been sunk and a fifth severely damaged. Admiral Togo’s fleet, which was both faster and better armed than that of his Russian adversary, suffered no losses during this initial clash.

Indicative of the unevenness of the struggle between the two forces was the fate of the Russian Battleship, Borodino, which after being struck in one of its powder magazines, exploded and sank within minutes taking all hands with her to the bottom. Fading light brought no relief to the hard-pressed Russians; instead, as daylight faded on the 27th, the Japanese continued to aggressively press their attacks with destroyers and torpedo boats. By the time night fell on the following day, May 28th, all but twelve of the Russian ships had been sunk, captured, or run aground. Admiral Togo’s total losses were limited to only three torpedo boats. The Russian defeat was crushing; even Admiral Rozhestvensky was wounded in the course of the battle and taken prisoner by the Japanese.

The Battle of Tsushima Strait, besides ending in a decisive victory for the Japanese Navy, was an historic clash for several other reasons. It had been the greatest naval battle since Trafalgar, almost a century before; and it had also been the only major naval action to ever be fought between pre-dreadnaught battleships. In addition, the lop-sided outcome of the battle — although a humiliating and strategic reversal for the Tsar — was, at least, instrumental in finally bringing the Russians to the peace table. ASnd thus it was that the Russo-Japanese War formally ended with the acceptance, by both sides, of peace terms proposed by the American President, Theodore Roosevelt, in December 1905.

DESCRIPTION

THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR simulates the Russo-Japanese War on both land and sea. The land game, PORT ARTHUR, is a strategic treatment of the war, with special emphasis on the logistical problems confronting both armies. The naval game, TSUSHIMA, centers on the individual capital ships and flotillas that featured so prominently in the final outcome of the war. THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR is a comprehensive simulation of the major strategic factors that influenced the battle for Manchuria. However, for those players who want to focus exclusively on either the land or naval portions of the campaign, either the land or the naval game can be played independently.

PORT ARTHURThis game is a division-level simulation of the Japanese land campaign to seize control of Manchuria from Imperial Russia. The game covers the decisive period — from February, 1904 through December, 1905 — during which the outcome of the Japanese land campaign was decided. The PORT ARTHUR game map covers Manchuria from Port Arthur to Mukden; this was the primary battle area over which the contesting armies maneuvered and fought. PORT ARTHUR is played in monthly game turns each of which is divided into a Japanese and a Russian player turn. The Japanese player is always the first to act. Each seven-step game turn proceeds in the following order: Japanese Movement Phase; Japanese Combat Phase; Japanese Supply Determination and Reinforcement Phase; Russian Movement Phase; Russian Combat Phase; Russian Supply Determination and Reinforcement Phase; and the joint Terminal Phase.

Supply, as it did in the historical campaign, plays a critical role in PORT ARTHUR; for this reason, the rules governing the determination of supply status for both sides are both detailed and comparatively complicated. Both sides may use one of two types of supply: Intrinsic Supply, which is drawn from specific geographical sites (e.g. Mukden), and is never expended; and Supply Counters, which are expended when used to support an attack. Supply effects are fairly draconian, if straight forward: “supplied” units operate using their face combat values; “unsupplied” units may not attack at all. In addition, unsupplied artillery units defend with a “0” defense strength and the phasing player receives a +2 die roll modification (DRM) when attacking any unsupplied non-artillery units. Besides combat, supply may also be used to repair damaged combat units. Interestingly, supply status does not affect movement, but “seasons” do. Thus, the movement allowances of all units vary according to the different seasons of the year. All infantry-type units exert a zone of control (ZOC). Zones of control, however, do not extend into town or rough terrain hexes, nor across rivers. In addition, ZOCs are “rigid”: a phasing unit must halt when entering an enemy ZOC, and may move no farther during that game turn. In a subsequent player turn, a phasing unit may either exit an enemy ZOC without penalty, or it may move directly from one ZOC to another, expending its full movement allowance. Stacking of combat units is limited to five units per hex, and no more than two units in a stack may be divisions. Combat is resolved using an “odds differential” Combat Results Table (CRT), but there are two different CRTs: a regular Combat Results Table, and a Siege Fire Results Table. Combat losses are assessed in terms of “hits” and “rout” results. Each hit degrades the combat power of the affected unit, and three hits results in its elimination. “Rout” results require all units in the defending stack to take one hit and retreat four hexes. Terrain Effects are relatively uncomplicated. As might be expected, both rivers and rough terrain slow movement. On the other hand, roads and railroads accelerate movement significantly: phasing units pay one-half movement point to move along roads, and one-fifth movement point to move by rail.

Victory, not surprisingly, is determined on the basis of control of geographical objectives. The Japanese goal, as it was historically, is to capture Mukden and Port Arthur and the rail line that connects them. Different levels of victory are possible, however, depending on how close the Japanese player actually comes to achieving this strategic goal. In the case of stalemate, players also have the choice of playing for an “Optional” victory. This situation may occur if the game bogs down, and neither player is in a position to attain a conventional win.

PORT ARTHUR offers only the twenty-three turn Historical Game. There are no “Optional” rules.

TSUSHIMAThis is the companion game to PORT ARTHUR and covers the naval war between Japan and Russia, the outcome of which was critical to the success of the Japanese land campaign in Manchuria. The naval game map represents the sea areas immediately surrounding Manchuria and the Japanese Islands. TSUSHIMA is played in monthly game turns each of which is comprised of seven turn segments. The first six turn segments simulate naval operations and are each procedurally identical. The Japanese player is always the first player. Each of the six naval segments proceeds as follows: Japanese Movement Phase; Japanese Spotting and Combat Phase; Russian Movement Phase; Russian Spotting and Combat Phase. At the conclusion of the sixth naval segment, the game turn ends with the joint Terminal Phase.

Because TSUSHIMA is a naval simulation, a number of familiar land combat concepts do not appear in the game. Supply, for example, is not a factor because of the scale and time frame of the game. However, in its place, Ports and Ship Repairs do have a direct effect on both navies’ operations during the course of play. Movement rules are simple, but important; just one example of movement restrictions: before either players’ fleets leave port, individual ships must be assigned to “Divisions,” each of which can range in size from three to six ships. Terrain rules are also quite simple. Because there are essentially only three types of terrain — land, sea, and partial sea hexes — the effects of different terrain types are minimal. However, terrain is not completely irrelevant: naval units that enter “partial sea” hexes do run a small risk of “running aground.”

The Spotting and Combat Rules for TSUSHIMA, as is typical of many naval board games, are very reminiscent of those governing naval miniatures. They are also both very detailed and quite richly textured, and, for this reason, the following description of naval combat operations represents only a brief overview of the various steps that players must follow in the course of the game. Combat, as is typical of many naval games that attempt to simulate both strategic and tactical operations, only becomes possible when enemy fleets occupy the same hex. Thus, ships maneuver on the regular hexagonal (strategic) game map until they enter a hex containing enemy vessels. When opposing fleets intercept each other, they may attempt, during the appropriate player phase, to spot the enemy ships located in their current hex. If spotting is successful, the two opposing fleets — much like surface combat in TAHGC’s MIDWAY — are both removed from the strategic map and are placed on the TSUSHIMA “Battle Board.” Ships transferred to the “Battle Board” must initially be placed in their starting divisions, and the top ship counter in each “divisional” stack is considered to be the “lead” ship for that division: a designation, by the way, that is important because of its effect on the speed and maneuver options of the entire division. Once the two enemy fleets have been deployed on the opposite ends of the “Battle Board,” combat begins.

Interestingly, combat procedures, although carefully structured, are conducted in a more-or-less open-ended sequence of firing and movement rounds until one or the other of the opposing fleets is either destroyed or retreats (attempts “flight”) from the action. All combat is considered to be simultaneous. Naval combat is resolved using “odds differential” Combat Results Tables (CRTs), of which there are two: a regular Naval Gunfire Table, and a Torpedo Table. Combat losses are assessed in terms of “hits” and “sunk” results. Each hit degrades the combat power and movement capability of the affected unit, and three hits results in its elimination (sinking). Destroyer and Torpedo Boat counters are an exception: hits affect the combat power of these units, but not their movement. Merchant fleets are sunk when they receive a single hit.

In addition to the basic rules covering movement, stacking, spotting, and combat, TSUSHIMA also includes detailed rules to simulate Morale, ship Repairs, Ports, Mines, and even Special Ship Types. And to add further to the (historically justified) woes of the Russian player, there is also a First Turn Surprise rule that severely restricts the actions of the Tsar’s fleet during the first two naval phases of the campaign game. There are no “Optional” rules.

TSUSHIMA, besides the twenty-three turn historical campaign game, also offers four shorter scenarios that permit the players both to familiarize themselves with the game system, and to examine different phases of the naval war. These scenarios (or mini-games) are: The Battle of Port Arthur (all action takes place on the “Battle Board”); The Destruction of the Variag at Chemulpo (all action on the “Battle Board”); The Battle of Round Island (up to 3 game turns); and The Battle of Tsushima (up to 3 game turns).

Victory in the campaign game is determined both by “Control of the Sea” and by the cumulative damage inflicted on the opposing fleet at the conclusion of the game. In the case of the shorter mini-games, victory conditions vary and are specific to the situation outlined in each scenario.

A PERSONAL OBSERVATION

In THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR, players will quickly find that, as was the case historically, Russian naval sorties are exceedingly rare. But some sort of naval action is virtually guaranteed: first because the vulnerability of the Japanese sea borne supply lines makes raiding attractive (the “Control of the Sea” issue); and second, because of the preordained arrival of the Russian Baltic Fleet. The importance of the Japanese sea supply lanes underscores a critical factor in THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR: in the land battle for Manchuria, it is often much more economical and effective to put enemy units out of supply, than it is to actually fight them. Toe-to-toe combat can be expensive, and, whether successful or not, always consumes precious supplies. Interestingly, the strategic balance between the two belligerents is much closer than it first appears. Although the Russian player is at a distinct disadvantage, both in terms of his naval combat power and in the command and control of his naval and ground forces, his position is far from hopeless. The Japanese player has problems of his own: Japanese forces must steadily advance, and they must capture Port Arthur and Mukden, if they are to have any chance of matching the original outcome of the campaign. Moreover, as long as Port Arthur is under Russian control, the Tsar’s navy remains a dangerous threat to Japanese operations. For this reason, and others, the historical Japanese victory is far from a foregone conclusion.

All things considered, the pair of simulations that make up THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR are two of the better games to come from Marc Miller: one of the “boys from Normal” who, in all honesty, has never been among my favorite designers at GDW. Unlike some of Mr. Miller’s other creations — AGINCOURT and the Seelöwe invasion game from THEIR FINEST HOUR come immediately to mind — the rules for THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR, while a little obtuse, are not incomprehensible; an observation that I make advisedly. Most new players will still find that more than one reading of the game rules is helpful before beginning play. Graphically, the game components are crude but neither ambiguous nor outright ugly. And continuing in this vein of “damning with faint praise,” the land and sea games actually mesh together fairly well, and the two titles are both interesting and enjoyable enough to be worth playing as separate “stand-alone” games.

That being said, THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR is not without its more serious faults. The supply rules for PORT ARTHUR, although plausible from an historical standpoint, are cumbersome; and players must take pains not to mix up supply counters with “hit” markers particularly in densely-stacked situations such as arise during the siege of Port Arthur. The main problem with the land game, however, is not rooted in the land supply rules, but in those rules that pertain to the Japanese sea lanes. During the early post-invasion phase of the game, if the Japanese lose “Control of the Seas,” the land game can easily go off the rails and even turn into an inconclusive stalemate. Historically this may be accurate, but a Russian player with “hot dice” can still create real problems for the Japanese land campaign.

The sea counterpart to the land game, TSUSHIMA, offers very few genuine surprises and is pretty-much standard fare for simulations of naval operations on this scale. There is a certain amount of “limited intelligence” baked into the game, but not so much as to seriously slow play. Of course, unless a player is a masochist, it is clearly more fun to command the Japanese Fleet in TSUSHIMA; so opponents eager to direct the Tsar’s outclassed naval forces are usually hard to find. I have personally found that, in dealing with this problem, bribes are often useful. To be fair, of course, this is hardly the fault of the game; particularly, in light of the historical outcome of the Battle of the Tsushima Strait. Sadly for the Russophiles amongst us, in the vast majority of TSUSHIMA naval match-ups, the Russian Navy will have a very tough time of it; on the other hand, they had a tough time of it, historically, so this aspect of the naval simulation really isn’t a surprise.

10
comments:

I am a novice gamer and am playing both Port Arthur and Tsushima with my best bud, a Vietnam Veteran and owner of a great many of the titles I see listed above. So he's pretty good at this. I'm taking the Russians, not as a glutton for punishment, more for a sense of the significance of the event, the Tsar's last armada. I wanted to thank you for the insights relative to actually playing the game, I think it will help a lot. The observation on cutting supply lines seems a good place to focus. Playing 5/22/10, wish me luck!

By all means, good luck in your first outing with the 'RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR'. And don't count the Russians out until you see the verdict of the die. For my own part, I also prefer the Russians to the Japanese, even though the forces of Imperial Japan in the game (as they were, historically) are superior to the out-classed Russians in virtually every way imaginable. In spite of his innate combat advantage, the Japanese commander still has to accomplish a great deal in a comparatively short space of time, so keep your ground forces from being crushed, and wait for your chance. The "worm can turn" very quickly if the Japanese player loses "control of the sea," believe me!

I’m the other half of the upcoming hostilities, to be commenced this coming Sunday. Brad told me about your site—great stuff!I haven’t unfolded these Russo-Japanese War maps in 30-years, but Brad said the period fascinated him, so away we go...

You obviously have a real handle on the rules. Here’s a dirty trick: I’m wondering how you feel about addressing a few questions and clarifications of some confusing issues?

To wit:TSUSHIMA Rule 11. Ports, states: “... defender may exit four counters per movement round...”Rule 13. First turn surprise, states: “On the first two naval phases of the campaign game, the Russian player may not move...”QUESTION: Does the Surprise rule prevent the exiting mentioned in the Port rule?

PORT ARTHUR Rule 12 E. Japanese Army Headquarters, states: “Japanese headquarters allow an extension of supply lines...”QUESTION: I don’t see any specifics associated with this extension—what am I missing?The Manchurian Campaign (set-up) states: “Russian Forces... Anywhere west of the Yalu River”QUESTION: This just seems odd; the area articulated is most of the map, which sounds good but for being in supply—in the beginning, without supply counters on the board, there’s no way the Russians can be in supply anywhere near the Yalu, true?

COMBINED GAME Rule 8. Initial Deployment, states: “However, no more than 4 Japanese divisions may be at Sasebo initially...”QUESTION: Does this mean no more than 4 divisions of all the divisions in the whole Japanese army or does this mean no more than 4 divisions PERIOD—no cavalry, artillery, headquarters, supply, port counters, etc.? Also—how does one go about subsequently transporting additional divisions (et al) to Sasebo from other parts of Japan? Merchants, port-to-port? Or is the pipeline assumed, dispensing with this formality?

Well, that’s enough of a headache, should you choose to weather it (and I don’t see why you should); I thank you for any help you can give us. And thank you for creating this site—gorgeous graphics-to-text and I’ve quite enjoyed your articulate expertise.

Regarding your several rules questions: I finally got rid of my own copy of the game a few months ago, but I will try to be of help -- based on my recollections of play -- where I can.

Question #1: My own view of the "Surprise Rule" is that it means exactly what it says. Irritating though it might be, the Russian navy is stuck in port for the first two naval phases of the game.

Question #2: This is another example of why I used to get so exasperated with Marc Miller's game designs! For my own part, I always treated the Army Headquarters as 'make-shift' depots that extend supply much like depot units do in 'FREDERICK THE GREAT'. I'm not sure if this was the designer's intent, but it seemed to work for me.

Question #3: Yep, the Russian units directly on the Mukden-Port Arthur rail line are in supply, but any Russian units deployed near the Yalu River should, I believe, be considered unsupplied and therefore incapable of attacking.

Question #4: My impression of this requirement is that it applies to division-sized units only. Other support elements, I think, should be allowed to occupy Sasebo. The issue of transporting units around Japan is a little more difficult. If, given the scale of the game, Russian units can be transported from Strategic Boxes (such as Harbin, for example) then I personally see no reason why the Japanese player should not be allowed a similar type of movement capability in Japan. Of course, if the Russian player digs his heels in on this point, Japanese units could still, I suppose, be transported by sea (using Merchant shipping) to Sasebo.

While I'm at it, I probably should add a couple of other thoughts to those that I have already covered.

First, the dual-use of 'hit markers' as both supply counters and hit markers is a huge pain, particularly when things get bloody -- as they inevitably will -- around Port Arthur. One solution, which I found helpful, was to use the supply counters (which have numberical values) from DNO/UNT.

Also, speaking of supplies: an area that can create disaggreement is the question of whether or not supplies should count against sea-lift. My own feeling is that each supply point should be treated as a regiment-sized unit; unfortunately, this issue, to be honest, is never really dealt with unambiguously in the game rules.

In addition, there is the issue of the Russian 'Strategic Movement' Boxes: the idea of an unsupplied Japanese regiment bottling up Russian reinforcements, I personally find both irksome and wildly unrealistic. To solve this problem, I suggest that you permit the Russians (if supplied, of course) to fight their way onto the map from an adjacent Strategic Movement Box.

Finally, there are a few additional rules clarifications for the game (that appeared in 'Fire & Movement #2) listed at grognard.com.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of all of these rules ideas, but they seem to have worked when I played the game. Of course, the main thing for the Japanese player is to not lose 'Control of the Sea' in the early going. Speaking from experience, such an event, although statistically unlikely, can really 'play hob' with Japanese invasion plans.

Well, that seems to be about all that I can think of for the moment. Good luck with your game with Brad and

I thought I'd apprise you of events: I failed to gain entry at Vlad and PA for 1st-turn attack; Brad came out of PA with his mighty armada and challenged the Japanese landing at Chemulpo; every BB but one Russian was destroyed, but the Japanese cruisers prevailed over the Russian counterpart. On the PA board, Japanese were stalled at the Yalu the first turn but landed on both sides of the peninsula, the Russian destroyers, BB and two (weak) CA remaining in PA for more opportune scenarios.

At this point we had to go back to reality and so put away the uncompleted match.

Seems to me the Russians would have survived on the board somewhere—perhaps even PA, since I decided to make Mukden my immediate goal—by the time the Russian 1st Baltic fleet hailed into view. Despite two powerful cruiser flotillas, the Japanese would have no answer for this force. If PA remained in Russian hands, game to Brad; if not, it might depend on the seasons, as raids out of Vladovostok might well have prevented Japanese from keeping troops in supply.

Interesting contest, bloody and exciting moments, followed by inexorable Japanese advances aggravating to Russian patience. Brad did quite well in his very first go! I'm thinking something a bit less daunting time/rule-wise for our next meet—perhaps SPI's Solomons Campaign?

Thank you for your 'after-action' report; I was quite curious to see how your first game of 'THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR' would turn out!

From your description, it looks like the Russian naval sorte out of Port Arthur came close to setting the Japanese plan of campaign back a turn or two. This is, I think, the biggest worry for the Japanese player in the early going: if the Russian player gets hold of some 'hot' dice, the naval actions can be very unpleasant, indeed.

I also concur, by the way, that, if Brad can maintain any kind of naval force in Port Arthur long enough for the Baltic Fleet to make its arrival, then things can get very interesting for both players.

Your plan for the ground campaign also seems reasonable. Mukden is the obvious first objective; Port Arthur, because of its extensive fortifications is always a tough nut to crack.

Regarding your other point: SPI's 'SOLOMONS CAMPAIGN' is a very interesting, if somewhat unorthodox approach to the battle for Guadalcanal. If nothing else, those giant hexes take some getting used to! As I recall (and it has been a long time), my main problem with the game was that it seemed to be very hard for the Americans to do as well in the naval actions as they did historically. Of course, your own attempt at the game may produce very different results. It wouldn't be the first time.

Again, thanks for keeping me in the loop, and if you or Brad have any ideas on topics that you would like to see me feature on my blog, please don't hesitate to suggest them; I am always open to new ideas.

Yes those supply rules are something different from other games.Using hit markers also for supply didn't strike me right so I made up my own to keep seperate. I like Port Arthur but Tsushima left me a little flat. But still I'm glad to have copies of the games

This game, even though I am not particularly fond of Marc Miller's game designs, kind of grows on you. For may own part, when it came to the supply counters, I just borrowed supply units from DNO/UNT, so I never had any problems with geting "hits" and supply units mixed up.

There is no doubt that, of the two games, the land game is probably the better balanced of the two. The problem with the combined "Campaign Game" is that the naval portion of the game can really blow up if one player (particularly the Russian) gets ahold of some hot dice!

I spent some time w/ the Combined Game a few months ago before packing it up in frustration. I posted some comments on Consim (in the Memory Lane/GDW folder) and am copying them here to see if you have any comments. I wouldn't mind taking this one for another spin! Any thoughts/comments would be appreciated.

Dan

"I am looking for suggestions re tweaking the this into playability. For starters, the opening Japanese torpedo attack on Port Arthur is much too strong (likely to sink 2-3 Russian battleships). Also, the Combined Game sequence of play is unworkable(transported Japanese troops can move in the Naval Phase in which they land, even if the Japanese have already had their land movement phase, allowing a de facto two moves in a row). In additions, the invasion transport capacities do not seem consistent between Port Arthur (20 CSP/turn) and the combined Russo-Japanese War (a lot more given 10 MS each capable of transporting 12 CSP, even given the need to allot capacity to the invasion ports themselves and transit to/from ports in Japan). There is probably more but in any case it feels like the combined game was barely tested. Probably Tsushima (away from the surprise attack problem) and Port Arthur work better on their own but I would like to see if I could get them to work together."

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this interesting, if frustrating, old title. Marc W. Miller was the naval games specialist at GDW; but, to this day, I still have no idea as to why this was.

In any case, welcome to Marc Miller's world of strange, confusing, and often undecipherable game rules! As I indicated in the game profile above (and in numerous other posts on my blog), Marc may be a great RPG designer, but, when it comes to writing rules for convention wargames, he is often nerve-rackingly obtuse. For example, the first time that I and another experienced player attempted to play 'TSUSHIMA', I recall that both of us had to reread the rules over and over again in order to make sure (we never were) that we had a correct understanding of the combat sub-routines.

To be fair, during GDW's early days, nobody in Normal seemed capable of writing clear, unambiguous, and complete rules. I and my regular wargaming buddies, for instance, mailed off page after page of rules questions to GDW -- all of which got answered, by the way -- only to find that the answers that we received created as many questions as they resolved.

In the end, my suggestion is for you to do with 'THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR' what I and my friends ultimately did with DNO/UNT:; that is: figure out logical and historically valid rules interpretations and/or modifications that seem to work, try them out, and, if they are successful, write them down and keep them with your copy of the game. My decades-old copy of DNO/UNT no longer looks much like the original game (more cities, rivers, swamps, etc.) and it certainly doesn't play like Chadwick's and Banner's first draft, but it works for me; and, in the end, that is all that really counts.

Best Regards, Joe

P.S. If you think Miller's rules-writing in this game is murky and confusing, you probably need to look at 'SEELOWE' or even little 'AGINCOURT' if you want to see Miller at his worst.

About Me

I am an Army veteran of the Viet Nam War who retired from a career as a horse trainer and riding instructor in 2006. Since the late 1960’s, I have been an amateur student of military history, and an avid collector and player of traditional (map and counters) war games. Over the years, I have competed in a number of board gaming tournaments, and have won two WBC Championship titles in Afrika Korps, and five in Waterloo. Besides war games and history, my other interests include veterans’ affairs and Poker.
I presently live with my wife of over thirty years in Phoenix, Arizona. I am a graduate of Reed College and formerly attended graduate school at Arizona State University.